Wednesday, December 17, 2014

In conversations about the declining homeownership rate in
the U.S., some commentators have pointed to declines in the share of married people as an important contributing factor. To be sure, married couples are much more likely to be homeowners than unmarried individuals, due to their generally better socio-economic status. Married couples are also more likely to have children, and therefore more likely to want larger homes in areas with more family-friendly amenities such as safe neighborhoods and good schools. And these features are more often found in suburban neighborhoods where a larger percentage of the housing stock is available to own rather than rent. A decrease in married couples, goes the argument, should reduce the share of households that own their homes. While this is true, all else equal, this rationale fails to consider three important facts about marriage and homeownership that suggest this effect is not as large as many people imagine, and that recent trends are not necessarily indicative of a fundamental shift in demand for owned homes.

Fact #1: Marriage rates have been declining for decades.

While concern over the connection between declining marriage rates and declining homeownership has gained traction in recent years, the share of households headed by a married couple has actually been on a steady downward trend since the 1960s when over 70 percent of adults ages 18 and older were married (Figure 1). Declines since 1960 in the married share have been dramatic, falling fully 17 percentage points from a half-century earlier. The time frame of this decline, however, coincides with a period of steady increases in the national homeownership rate, from 62 percent in 1960 to 66 percent in 2000. Indeed, only during a brief period in the early 1980s did the homeownership rate decline slightly, at the same time that marriage rates were falling (though moderating somewhat from more dramatic decreases during the 1970s).

Since the turn of the century, of course, the homeownership rate has declined from a peak of 68 percent in 2004 to 64 percent earlier this year. In that time, the married share of the population has also fallen slightly, thus fueling the argument that the two trends are linked. Yet these recent declines in homeownership and marriage rates have also been greatly impacted by conditions in the macro economy, particularly the slow pace of earnings growth and high unemployment. The decline in marriage rates is also clearly a continuation of a long-term trend related to socio-demographic changes in the population and shifting social norms around relationships and cohabitation. The fall-off in homeownership, meanwhile, is largely viewed as a reversion to conditions that existed prior to the late 1990s and early 2000s spike in home buying, rather than purely a reflection of changing household compositions. This is not to say that there is no connection between marriage and homeownership, only that there is more to this story. As the statisticians say, correlation is not causation, so looking at recent changes in marriage and homeownership does not necessarily mean that one fully explains the other.

Note: The homeownership rate from 2000-2014 is calculated by using the Decennial Census rate from 2000 and adjusting annually by the change in the homeownership rate reported by the Housing Vacancy Survey.

The share of married adults in the U.S. only tells part of the story about the marital status of Americans. A better indicator may be the share that have ever been married, observed in mid-life when most people are settled and those who will marry have likely done so. By their late 40s, more than 85 percent of Americans report having been ever married, with that share leveling off over the last decade (Figure 2). Even by their late 30s, nearly 80 percent of people have tied the knot. The big change over the last 30 years, however, has been in the share of young adults aged 25-34 who have not married, which rose from 25 percent in the mid-1980s to almost 50 percent today, with notable acceleration over the last 10 years. The driving force behind this trend has been a steady increase in the age at first marriage, from 20 years old for women and 22.5 for men in the late 1950s, to 26.5 and 29 years old, respectively, in 2011. Young adults are more likely today to pursue post-secondary education, to relocate to a new area for employment, and to live with partners before marrying, all of which combines to delay the trip down the aisle. Again, these trends are not new, but have been gaining momentum for the past half-century.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s Decennial Census and Current Population Surveys.

Fact #3: It’s not only the current marriages that drive homeownership.

This last point about marriage and homeownership is one that does not get a lot of attention, but is very important to conversations about homeownership rates going forward. Among the unmarried population in the U.S. are a large number of previously married adults – those who are divorced or whose spouse has died – who have very different homeownership experiences from those who have never been married. Indeed, even as married households have been on the decline in the U.S., the share of householders who report being previously-but-not-currently married has remained steady at around 30 percent (Figure 3). The effect of these prior marriages on homeownership is profound, as previously-married householders are much more likely to own than never-married householders. Many of these are ‘legacy’ homeowners who bought while still married and remained in the home after becoming single, although some likely bought homes without a spouse, using proceeds from a home they owned when married. Previously-married householders have also seen a smaller decline in their homeownership rate, relative to currently-married householders, since the end of the housing boom a decade ago. All of these groups, moreover, have homeownership rates today that are at or above their pre-boom levels from the mid-1990s, suggesting that homeownership has been an important and popular choice for all households regardless of their marital status.

Note: Data are share of householders, not persons, by marital and tenure status. Households who report being separated from their spouse are not considered to be currently married.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s Current Population Surveys.

These facts make clear that recent concerns about the decline in marriage leading to less demand for homeownership are perhaps overstated. While married couples continue to own homes at higher rates than unmarried individuals, there is more to this relationship. Only recently have shares of married couples and shares of home-owning households both been declining, due mostly to economic factors, while vast majorities of the population still aspire to both marriage and homeownership. Nor are married couples the only ones owning homes, as both previously-married and never-married householders significantly increased their homeownership rates during the housing boom, with only small declines since the peak in 2005.

Finally, it is worth noting that most discussions of the role of marriage in housing decisions fail to consider the importance of other changes in household demographics that have had an impact on homeownership rate; the increasing share of minorities in the population, for example, can have a lowering effect on homeownership rates, while higher rates of college educated adults in the population should increase the share that own. The most important factors in recent declines in homeownership rates, however, are the performances of the housing market and economy, which determine whether households of all types are able to purchase homes. Stagnant incomes and constrained credit have had greater impacts on homeownership rates since the end of the housing boom than long-term demographic changes, and will likely continue to drive homeownership trends in the near future.

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

What makes a home healthy or unhealthy? As Mariel Wolfson
illustrated in her recent blog, this question is a multifaceted one. Old hazards
persist, including lead paint, combustion pollution, formaldehyde, and
radon. There is also growing awareness of other invisible pollutants,
including volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds and endocrine disrupting
chemicals. These elements enter homes
not only through household products and goods but, as research from the Healthy Building Network shows, through building materials
themselves. Achieving optimal
ventilation remains essential to healthy indoor air quality. Attention
should also be paid to the surrounding neighborhood, including access to health
services and healthy food, walkability and accessibility, and levels of outdoor
air pollution. Some communities are
disproportionately affected by polluting industries and waste disposal sites in
their neighborhoods, making it even more difficult for residents to enjoy a
healthy home environment.

Households’ perceptions of health risks influence behaviors and
in turn affect the home environment, so the Joint Center recently surveyed
homeowners to learn about their ‘healthy housing’ concerns. These include
but are not limited to worries about mold/moisture, indoor air quality,
chemicals at home, and noise and lighting issues which might affect household
health.

We found that roughly one out of four homeowners expressed some
level of concern about an aspect of their home negatively impacting their
household’s health. One out of ten households described their concerns as
‘moderate’ or ‘major’. High income households (earning $100K or more)
were slightly more likely to express concern, as were households with one or
more children.

By far the most frequently cited problem was indoor air quality,
with more than two thirds of the concerned households identifying it as an
issue. Water quality and harmful chemicals/materials followed, with around
30-40 percent of households citing them. As the chart below shows, these
indoor health risks ranked even above basic safety issues. Least commonly
cited problems were light and noise issues.

Notes: Sample size is 529. Households that expressed some basic level of healthy housing interest/concern were asked, “Which general category(ies) best describes your concern about the impact of your home on your household’s health?” Safety or comfort of the structure includes trip hazards, inadequate heating/cooling etc. Other basic safety issues include pests, lack of smoke detectors/locks/child safety features, etc.

When asked to be more specific about the source of their
indoor air quality concerns, top issues cited by owners included managing
household dust and/or pet dander, air pollution from indoor cooking/heating,
and lack of sufficient ventilation. Over half of households concerned
about residential indoor health risks identified these as problems. Just
under half of those worried about indoor health cited chemicals from
interior furnishings and from the building/structure itself as a source of
concern.

Among all homeowners expressing concerns related to indoor
health, more than half took at least one specific action to remediate
their concern. Most frequent actions completed or planned in the near
future included water filter installation, choice of paint with no or low
airborne toxins, mold removal, and installation of room darkening
curtains/shades. Less frequent actions included removal of asbestos and
lead paint.

Over the coming months, the Joint Center will analyze results
from similar surveys of renter households, as well as of remodeling contractors,
to better understand how healthy housing concerns and behaviors are playing out
in the current residential remodeling market.

Friday, December 5, 2014

From time to time, Housing Perspectives features posts by guest bloggers. Today's post, written by Jeffrey Lubell, Director of Housing and Community Initiatives at Abt Associates, reflects thoughts from a book launch & panel discussion he participated in at the Harvard Kennedy School on October 30, 2014. The panel was entitled "The Future of Homeownership in America", was moderated by NPR Reporter Chris Arnold, and also included panelists Chris Herbert (Joint Center for Housing Studies), Marsha Courchane (Charles River Associates), and Patricia McCoy (Boston College).

In a recent editorial
titled "Homeownership and Wealth Creation," the New York Times highlighted an analysis
by Chris Herbert, Dan McCue, and Rocio Sanchez-Moyano of the
Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies that re-examined whether homeownership
contributes to individual wealth creation in light of the experience of
homeowners during the housing bust of the late 2000s. Building on the findings of this analysis, the
Times emphasized that homeownership remains a critically important vehicle for
the accumulation of wealth and expressed support for policies that make
mortgage products safer and boost Americans’ incomes to expand their purchasing
power.

The paper by Herbert, McCue and Sanchez-Moyano was originally
presented at a symposium in 2013 and recently published as a chapter in a new Joint Center book, Homeownership Built to Last. Earlier this fall, the Joint Center hosted a book launch that included presentations by authors of four of the
chapters in the book. As a contributing author and participant in
the book launch, I am pleased to see the New York Times utilize the
research in Homeownership Built to Last
for its intended purpose: to draw lessons from the foreclosure and housing
crises and other recent experience that can help us develop policies to support
sustainable homeownership.

I would take the Times’ recommendations one step further,
however. In my chapter and presentation
at the book launch, I urged us to take the additional step of working to expand the
supply of homeownership opportunities affordable to low- and moderate-income
households by investing in shared equity homeownership. Shared equity homeownership represents an
alternative to down payment grants and forgivable loans that enables asset-building
homeownership opportunities to be provided to many more families with the same
amount of government investment. Under
this approach, a government subsidy (or an inclusionary housing policy) is used
to reduce the purchase price of a home.
In exchange for a more affordable purchase price, the homebuyer agrees
to sell the home to the next buyer at an affordable price, set by formula to
balance wealth creation by the homeowner with ongoing affordability to the next
owner.

The result is the preservation of the initial subsidy to
help one homebuyer after another. While
the shared equity homeowner gives up the opportunity to make a killing if the
market goes through the roof, the homeowner nevertheless has the opportunity to
build sizable and potentially life-altering wealth through the combination of
the forced savings of a fixed-rate mortgage and a generally predictable amount of
home price appreciation. As an added
bonus, shared equity homeownership may help reduce the incidence of foreclosure
and provides some protection from modest declines in the market.

Shared equity homeownership is not for everyone. But it does fill an essential market
niche. If we want to expand
asset-building opportunities through homeownership to the low- and
moderate-income households that really need them, we’re going to need to both
expand the credit box so that more families can access reasonably priced
mortgage capital AND expand the supply of homes low- and moderate income
households can afford through strategies like shared equity homeownership.

About

Drawing from the ongoing research and analysis of the Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies, Housing Perspectives provides timely insight into current trends and key issues in housing. We dig deeper into the housing headlines to discuss critical issues and trends in housing, community development, global urbanism, and sustainability. Posts are written by staff of the Joint Center, drawing from their wide-ranging knowledge and experience studying housing. We hope you will follow Housing Perspectives, and we welcome your comments.

The opinions expressed in Housing Perspectives do not necessarily represent the views of Harvard University, the Policy Advisory Board of the Joint Center for Housing Studies, or any other sponsoring agency. The Joint Center welcomes comments to our Housing Perspectives blog. Any opinions expressed in posted comments, or in guest blogs, are those of the authors and not those of the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University or of any of the persons or organizations providing support to the Joint Center for Housing Studies. Comments are generally not edited but are reviewed for appropriateness, and normally post within a day. The Joint Center reserves the right to delete or decline to post comments that are off-topic, illegal, or otherwise objectionable or injurious. Commenters are fully responsible for the content they submit, and indemnify Harvard University and the Joint Center for Housing Studies against any losses, damages, or costs resulting from any claim relating to material they have posted. We require commenters to sign their comments with their real names. All comments and postings are the property of the Joint Center and may be used by the Joint Center at its discretion.